Blogs: Unassigned Entry #3: The Dialetheia

   In logic, there is a basic principle: nothing can be both true and false. This law of the excluded middle has been known since the time of Aristotle at least. What if it was untrue, that is, what if there was something that is in fact both true and false, a true contradiction? Dialetheists answer with a resounding 'yes', and such true contradictions are called dialetheia. This view is controversial; in classical logic, everything is proven by a contradiction, and so a contradictory theory is completely useless. Most dialetheists counter this objection by denying that everything is so proven, such logics are called paraconsistent logic. As complicated as logic can be, paraconsistent logics are even more detailed. However, the dialetheia is not limited to ontological claims. Even if a person believes in the law of excluded middle, the dialetheia can be useful. Many time in our lives, we have inconsistent information. While we hope that all such confusion will be cleared up in time, in the mean time it would be nice to be able to deal with it logically. A related use is in computer science. Sometimes a computer's sensor will be broken, but the data it transmits might still be somewhat usable.

Blogs: Assigned Entry #4: Capitalism: A Love Story

   In Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story, he uses a lighthearted yet moralizing tone to establish the problems with America's relationship with capitalism. His main point seems to be that capitalism encourages people to adopt predatory practices, and these predatory practices are both unethical and go against the Constitution. He instead supports democratic socialism.

   Democratic socialism is a political system that favors a gradual and peaceful transformation of modern democracies away from capitalism and towards some sort of common ownership model. The particulars of this model vary wildly, but the basic ideas are of equality and a certain grassroot ethos.

   The outstanding flaw in Capitalism is that there is no suggestion for an act. The audience is given all this dramatic and interesting information, and even people to blame, and yet there is nothing to be done. This is a common theme with democratic socialism; there is no real way to get there from here. The reason why is simple; it is a political theory that is not based on political science.

   In Weber's seminal work, Politics as a Vocation, he says that "a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." Since violence defines the state, maintaining this monopoly is the highest goal of any functional state. Thus, moralizing reasons to change the system fail to motivate change; only a proof that socialism is better than capitalism at maintaining the monopoly, will change the state. Such an argument I have never encountered, whereas capitalism has the military-industrial complex in its corner. Socialism with something similar might work, but would also lose some of its appeal as a morally superior system. Certainly though, the argument that the poor have sacked capitals of empires before is a motivating reason to divide the wealth at least a little more equally.

Blogs: Unassigned Entry #2: What's in a Number?

   Numbers. We all use them practically every day. We basically take them for granted, but what exactly is a number? How can we know that our conception of numbers even make sense? The first question is a major topic in the philosophy of mathematics, and I will not answer is, at least not today. The second question however, is today's topic.

   On the sensibility of numbers, of mathematics, rigor has been the strategy for centuries. The thinking is if you have a short set of rules, and prove everything from these rules, everything will make sense. In 1931, Kurt Gödel proved that no system can ever be know to be logical, they are either illogical or not yet proven to be illogical. Despite this, the rules-based approach is the best thing we have.

   So what are the basic rules, or axioms, of numbers? There are many different numbers; natural, integer, ration, real, complex, quarterion, hyperreal, surreal, the list goes on and on. Limiting the discussion to just natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...)

1. Each natural number is a list, or set. 0 is a set with nothing in it; {}.
2. 0 is a natural number.
3. Each natural number is the set of all smaller numbers. i.e. 1 = {0}, 3 = {0, 1, 2}.
4. Each natural number has a successor number, the number that comes next, represented s(x). e.i. s(0) = 1, s(12345) = 12346.
5. No natural number's successor is 0; 0 comes after no number.
6. If a natural number succeeds two numbers, they are the same number, i.e. If s(x) = 17 and s(y) = 17, then x = y = 16.
7. All natural numbers are a result of finite applications of succession to 0. Thus, s(s(s(s(0)))) is a natural number (namely 4), but s(s(...)) is not because of infinite succession. {0, 1, 4} is not a number because it cannot be formed by succession; you cannot add 4 before adding 3.

These rules together define the natural numbers; all other numbers can be defined in terms of the naturals and there are other rules for addition, multiplication, etc.

Blogs: Assigned Entry #3: Local Story Respond

Apparently, ASU will start offering shorter classes. If they are simply offering additional classes, I cannot envision a problem; Professors get more classes (and more money), students get more flexible schedules, and the school gets more money. However, if these classes begin to replace longer class, that is a problem. No one should have to pick between taking a normal length class and graduating on time. Since the University's administration tends to be oblique concerning their future plans, this development require monitoring.

Blogs: Assigned Entry #2: The Helical 'Model' of Our Solar System

In August of last year, a man that goes by the handle 'DJ Sadhu' created a video on the supposed working of the solar system. According to him, the solar system is a helix that corkscrews throughout the galaxy. From what I knew, that did not sound right, so after a quick Google search, I found a rebuttal.

After reading the rebuttal, I decided to check his website. Apparently, he described it this way because his New-Age religion describes it this way. In addition, he has many other controversial and categorically false videos and posts, such as anti-Vaccine propaganda, MMS (using chlorine bleach as a dietary supplement) nonsense, and September 11th conspiracy theories. Needless to say, he is an expert only at making attractive videos.